Denmark's Fat Tax. What do you think?

reply to post by buddhasystem


How is forcing others to do what you want harmonious? Your rationalizing and ignoring history which is what I'm talking about. You think doing the same things will lead to a different outcome than it always has in the past. It won't.

Every freedom removed is a step closer to what always happens. The truths of history won't change and people will not change just because you want them too.

Just look at the bad boys of history who made the exact same argument and what it cost the world to deal with them after they fooled the people into thinking being controlled was a good thing.

We are Homo Sapiens and we only thrive if free to make our own mistakes and live our own lives. When that freedom is taken away we are like a Tiger in a cage at the Zoo. We are better off fending for ourselves than being cared for and having our decisions made by others. We turn apathetic just like a wild animal that starves to death because some well meaning person fed them, only to cause them to starve because they no longer know how to get their own food.

We can never have to much freedom and what we have we need to guard with our lives if need be. When governments role goes beyond protecting us from enemies and violent criminals and providing an infrastructure to controlling even what we eat, we all loose. It always happens the same way.

Hate is a powerful tool. Almost as powerful as using starvation to control a populace. It always works. Turn one segment against another and then you can screw them all while they are busy hating each other. That is what this is about. I'd say lets come back and discuss this in twenty years and see where it goes, but I doubt people will be free enough to discuss this on the Internet by then. They will convince people the internet is bad for them and tax or regulate it out of existence except to feed us their propaganda.

I agree 100% with everything Blaine said.

Looking at things at more of a personal level, you can't just raise the tax on food and expect a change. Food is very personal for people. Each person has their own tastes, desires, and comfort levels. There are many physiological reasons people eat food they know that are not good for them. Some eat certain foods for comfort. Some to reduce stress. Some have a craving for certain foods.

Personal example, Pepsi calms down my stomach and nerves. Why? I don't know. It may only be physiological, but it is very strong. For many women during the time of month, we crave salt. For me it has to be something with salt on the outside. I prefer chips. One small bag of chips, and I'm usually good to go.

Many crave coffee. They have to have coffee in the morning, or can't get through their day. Something physiological makes their day and circumstances much worse than it normally would have been. Many crave chocolate.

When weight loss shows became popular there was one show I did watch. It wasn't the Biggest Looser. I forget the name. It was about a personal trainer willing to take on a challenge of helping either the heaviest set man or one of the heaviest set men to loose weight. He said something I will never forget. If he took away the foods the heavy set man was use to and put him on a diet, it would never work. The jist I got from it was that his body and mind was so use to what he was eating, that any changes had to be extremely small for both the mind and body to get use to. The person had to be willing to change.

The changes the trainer was making was the man was one day he would not be allowed to have as much pop as he wanted. The restriction was lifted the next day. The next day it may have been cutting out or back on a certain food. The restriction was always lifted until the man was ready to accept not eating and drinking as much. I don't ever remember the trainer ever restricting any type of food. If I remember correctly, the man actually did it himself later on in the show. It ended up being the person doing it, and not the trainer.

Eventually the person lost the weight he wanted to. His mind had to go through a transformation as well as his body. If that transformation in the mind doesn't happen, then the person is more than likely going to slip back in the old habits.

How many people who have lost weight don't recognize the person in the mirror, and start to feel uncomfortable? How many of them look in the mirror still thinking they are fat, and need to loose more weight even though they don't?

If a person eats if they are stressed or for comfort, then they need to be able to replace that with something else. It is going to take time. You want people to loose weight? You can't just call them fat, looser, lazy, and etc. You can't expect them to change just because you and/or the government want them to.

Then people forget there may be underlying health reasons for people not loosing weight such as a thyroid problem. If people had adequate, affordable health care, then may be we could be seen and treated by the doctor.

Also, don't forget the food manufactures. They need to stop adding harmful chemicals in our food that make us get big such as giving steroids to cows that get in our children's milk. Don't think the steroids are passed to the person from the milk? What about high fructose corn syrup, and other harmful chemicals? The food companies and FDA are just as much to blame. We don't get enough vitamins from our food any longer. Our fruits and veggies have changed, and have become genetically manipulated.

My pastor asked us once, why is it when I was a kid my mom could cut an apple and leave cut slices out for us to grab as we wanted them over the course of the day. Now you cut an apple, and it starts turning brown almost right away? I've seen it while making apple pie. The pealed apple slices were turning brown before I could get them into the cinnamon and sugar. When I was a kid watching my mom make apple pies, that didn't happen.

In our fast paced world, many of us forgot how to cook something that doesn't come from a box. Many of us don't have time to cook a good home cooked meal. Get home from work, have a couple of hours to help the kids with their homework, get some cleaning done, get food in the stomach, and maybe some down time before jumping back in bed.

For the person who says beans or lentils are the answer. Many of us hate beans in any shape, way, or form. I rather eat bland noodles. My husband will eat beans every once in awhile, even they are going up in price. Where one person can't stand a meat diet, another can't stand a vegetarian diet.

Where one person can eat any thing they want and not gain a pound and sit on their butts all day. While another person exercises, stays active, but no matter what they eat they gain weight. Why is that?

Assuming all children's activity level is about the same. Why is it in one family one child stays thin while the rest of their siblings gain weight. In another family one sibling gains weight while all the rest stay thin. Then there are families where everyone thin almost to the point of looking anorexic, and other families are just heavy.

Yet, the governments wants to dictate a one size fits all even though that one size will be way too big for some, and never, ever be able to fit others.

reply to post by Mystery_Lady


I agree with your post and offer a bit of advice. Browning of apples isn't a great example. It is natural oxidation. If you don't want brown apples simply sprinkle a little lemon juice or other edible acidic juice and toss before serving. They won't brown for a while and you get to eat pretty food.

I think it's crap, but I know in the future the ignorant young and academics will bring in totalitarianism in the name of establishing utopia.

reply to post by buddhasystem


It's been proven that unless a tax is so high that it inhibits the purchase of an item, it will not curb consumption. In otherwords.... Denmark just needs more money, and poor people eat a lot of foo high in fat .. thus .. will have the highest population contributing to the new tax.

For your own good.

And Washington State already has a Fast Food Tax which is the same thing as a fat tax.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

How is forcing others to do what you want harmonious? Your rationalizing and ignoring history which is what I'm talking about. You think doing the same things will lead to a different outcome than it always has in the past. It won't.

OK, let's look at the past. Take the Interstate Highway system. Most everyone agrees that this is probably the most vital element of the US infrastructure and has allowed its economy to flourish in the past. However, your posts seem to suggest that it was forced on the US population. Is that what you think?

We are Homo Sapiens and we only thrive if free to make our own mistakes and live our own lives. When that freedom is taken away we are like a Tiger in a cage at the Zoo.

That all sounds grand and all, but (a) do you think the US is more free than Norway? (b) do Norwegians live like Tigers at the Zoo?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

It's been proven that unless a tax is so high that it inhibits the purchase of an item, it will not curb consumption.

Facts show otherwise! Recently, during a spike in beef prices, beef consumption fell, prompting concerns in the beef industry that it will cause habitual change in the US population. I know that I personally buy less whole-grain bread when prices go high. Do I like strawberries? Yes I do, but I never buy just because I want to, I always check the sticker.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Comparing Vital Infrastructure like highways to attempting to control what others eat is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Makes no sense to me.

I think your belief is clear, you think its governments place to control our private lives and I do not. I think its heading a dangerous direction, you like the the direction its heading and want others controlled. We can agree to disagree Someday it will come back to bite those who support it.

For instance Obama admitted he was in the White House for a year before he stopped smoking. It's illegal to smoke on the White House property because it is Tax Payer owned. Clinton smoked cigars in the Oval Office. You suppose they were fined like I would be? It seems to me those who want to control others personal lives are pretty hypocritical when it comes to themselves.

I did notice a report last night about this Fat Tax. Apparently this did not go over to well and the Danes emptied the store shelves in a mad dash to avoid the extra tax. Clearly the Danes are not agreed.

What is the line where government control becomes too much? What next? Censorship? Its all the same thing.

I think people see it as having power over others. They get off on the power and its like a high they experience. Look at me, I forced those people I don't like to do what I want them to do. Boy am I cool and powerful. Nobody is buying that they care.

Yahoo article about people emptying shelves to avoid Fat Tax -

Christian Jensen, who runs a supermarket in Copenhagen, said: "It has been a chaotic week with a lot of empty shelves. People have been filling their freezers.

"But actually I do not think the tax will make that much difference. If people want to buy a cake, they will buy it. But right now they are saving money."

Its about money not the people and I'll stand by that. Just another way to single out a group to take more of their money under the lie its for them. Utter nonsense and a lot of liars.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Comparing Vital Infrastructure like highways to attempting to control what others eat is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Makes no sense to me.

Well in that case you didn't make yourself clear. What you stated is that taxation is forced expropriation of your money. Since the Interstate was built with $425B in taxes, that's the biggest highway robbery (pun intended) in recorded history. Are you OK with that?

Was it OK to ban asbestos?

For instance Obama admitted he was in the White House for a year before he stopped smoking. It's illegal to smoke on the White House property because it is Tax Payer owned. Clinton smoked cigars in the Oval Office. You suppose they were fined like I would be? It seems to me those who want to control others personal lives are pretty hypocritical when it comes to themselves.

Yeah, I don't like the "with power comes the privilege" thing either, but don't you think it's a bit petty in this case? I mean, a certain inhabitant of the White House started a war or two under most dubious of pretenses (on taxpayer money, of course), and that he went unpunished bothers me more than Obama having a smoke.

What is the line where government control becomes too much? What next? Censorship? Its all the same thing.

No they are not. Speaking of which, there is lots more of censorship in the US than it is in Denmark. So I still think our European friends are doing just fine.

What do I think? The US should do it and their debt will be wiped out in no time.

Terrible fatty food is too cheap and its everywhere. Even the salads at McD are fattening.

Originally posted by Flyer
What do I think? The US should do it and their debt will be wiped out in no time.

Terrible fatty food is too cheap and its everywhere. Even the salads at McD are fattening.

Indeed! When I read nutrition labels on some food, I get an impression that I'm not in a supermarket but at a toxic waste dump.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I'm absolutely OK with vital Infrastructure. The use of the highways benefits me and everyone else greatly and has nothing to do with controlling my personal behavior. It is off topic here on your own topic however. It strikes me as a diversion tactic in the debate, very much like politicians use when they no longer want to answer questions.

This is about the government controlling personal behavior. It's about one group attempting to lord over another in their personal lives. It's straight up 1984 Orwellian control.

One day you will be the target yourself. Something you do will be used as an excuse to take more of your income. Sooner or later it will bite you back.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I'm absolutely OK with vital Infrastructure. The use of the highways benefits me and everyone else greatly and has nothing to do with controlling my personal behavior. It is off topic here on your own topic however. It strikes me as a diversion tactic in the debate, very much like politicians use when they no longer want to answer questions.

Wait, first you declare all taxes as violence, then you object to me inquiring further on where you draw the line. Besides, what if I don't use highways? What if the county road is enough for me to get the stuff I need? My personal behavior is such, you see. Why anyone would regulate it for me?

What about food safety? Should there be no official body overseeing standards of production and safe handling of agricultural products? Well now we are squarely on the topic of food and how it relates to taxes.

This is about the government controlling personal behavior. It's about one group attempting to lord over another in their personal lives. It's straight up 1984 Orwellian control.

Should we be allowed or encouraged to engage in drunken driving? Or is it too much Orwellian?

reply to post by buddhasystem


I think you have misunderstood what I believe. No taxes are not evil and they are necessary.

Income Tax for infrastructure, law enforcement, courts, the military are all necessary and I have no problem with that.

What I have issues with are punitive taxes to control behavior and try to control peoples behavior in their personal lives. Anything that removes freedom is dangerous. Either make something illegal or stop penalizing people for engaging in legal behavior. The fact the courts have chosen to legislate from the bench is patently illegal in the US for instance and they know it.

Anytime a government pits one group against another and promotes hate so they can then penalize them with a tax, that is evil. In this case its pitting fit people against unfit people which is only a stones throw from the Nazi idea's.

Anytime a government uses taxes to reward voters for voting for them or to buy votes, that is evil. Like Obama showering the Unions with billions to buy votes; that is evil. Bailing out banks and then instead of going after the criminals in court, hiring them as advisers or ignoring their crimes as Obama has done is evil.

People who hate others simply because they are different or believe differently are evil. People who want to control others and force behavior are evil.

Maybe that is clearer.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
What I have issues with are punitive taxes to control behavior and try to control peoples behavior in their personal lives. Anything that removes freedom is dangerous. Either make something illegal or stop penalizing people for engaging in legal behavior.

Look, we live in a world that's far from ideal. Alcohol and tobacco have been an integral part of human culture for hundreds and maybe thousands of years. Same applies to consumption of fatty food. Neither is good for you, and in fact ruinous when practiced beyond moderation. There was an attempt to ban alcohol, you know better than I what came of it. Alcohol is taxed, tobacco is too (which I think is the right thing to do). I don't see a qualitative difference when it comes to fatty foods.

Anytime a government pits one group against another and promotes hate so they can then penalize them with a tax, that is evil. In this case its pitting fit people against unfit people which is only a stones throw from the Nazi idea's.

This is Reductio ad Hitlerum. Sorry I can't take this assertion seriously. I'm personally not too fit but not morbidly obese either. Am I being pitted against myself?

Bailing out banks and then instead of going after the criminals in court, hiring them as advisers or ignoring their crimes as Obama has done is evil.

Wait, you've been ringing freedom here, so try to understand that pursuing a whole class of business practices in court could easily constitute a violation of freedom on a scale much larger than any attempt to encourage healthy eating habits in the population.

People who hate others simply because they are different or believe differently are evil.

What does "hate" have to do with this thread? Seriously?

I applaude the Danish "Fat Tax" as a step in the right direction. prevention is better (& less expensive!) than cure. That said, it is my opinion that rather than taxing unhealthy behaviour, it would be more beneficial if we rewarded HEALTHY people, who after all have been paying for countless lung cancer treatments, lap band surgeries and other "lifestyle" related illnesses for years (in Australia where we have a public healthcare system anyway.). So every year when it's tax time, people who can provide proof of good health from their doctor get a voucher for a year's free gym membership, or a new pair of runners... What's your call ATS'ers, am I thinking too far outside the square here?

what i don't get about these taxes is that people get sick and die no matter what they do.

what was steven jobs lifestyle? i'm a year older than him and smoked for the last 45yrs.probably drink a lot more than him too. got a clean bill of health in april.


my friends daughter died of leukemia at age 12. see where i'm going? it's the luck of the draw.

how many died from the bad cukes in germany? cantalopes here in the states? the turkey?

living under power lines, contaminated enviroments, (ala love canal and erin brokovich)

too much salt in your diet? processed foods have a ton. fat? the danes make great cheeses for how long? ever eat duck confit'? delicious and do you know how it's cooked?

barring catastrophic accidents, we are riddled with diseases anyway.

there are way too many variables in a persons life to think that governments can zero in and change peoples behavior and health by taxing more.

i see no reason to control what people can eat by taxing.

it's a money grab pure and simple.

also, will we need health insurance if we were all healthy? lol, wouldn't that put insurance companies out of biz?

no, we would still have to pay. it's like buying tsunami insurance when you live in the middle of the rockies.

get into a fender bender and car insurance goes up, for what, 1-3yrs? don't matter you were accident free for the past 15-20yrs!

this is all BS.

Originally posted by fooks
what i don't get about these taxes is that people get sick and die no matter what they do.

That's a choice combination of "non sequitur" and a truism. It's like saying 100% of people who ever ate tomatoes eventually died, therefore veggies must be toxic.

what was steven jobs lifestyle? i'm a year older than him and smoked for the last 45yrs.probably drink a lot more than him too. got a clean bill of health in april.

Your case is honestly exceptional, most people are subject to statistic and won't win the jackpot of health like you did.

If you are telling me there is no correlation between consumption of tobacco and all sorts of decease, you must be kidding. Well you won the lottery but I won't make it my retirement plan, sorry.

I think it's obvious that people cannot take care of themselves and count on the gov't to do it. They get fat because they eat too much, knowing it will lead to sickness but also know they it get health care which raises costs for everybody else. Pay high health care or pay tax on fatty foods? Sure I don't want to pay tax either cause I'm fit and I pay to be fit. I pay to go to the gym and am active. People are fat cause they choose to be and don't o anything about it. Yes, some cannot help it but most can and don't. I say tax and I will pay since I'm paying a fat tax already in my health care costs!